Things not going well in Bolivia

[bad_teammate 13479]

Quote

  I don't like authoritarian anti-democratic regimes.

Is that why you run screaming in to every thread about military coups to howl about how bad the democratically elected presidents are? Seems inconsistent.

Quote

Murder of millions by leftist regimes (of which history has a rather impressive scorecard) -- A-OK.

What leftist regimes have killed millions in South America?

(When did I ever say any of it was OK?)

Quote

Right wing violence and murder (history fills some pages with this shit, too) -- not just wrong, but actually proof that being to the right of center is evil.

Why are you downplaying right-wing violence when the worst dictators in South America's history are all right-wing military dictatorships supported by the US to fight Communism? Seems either historically ignorant or purposefully misleading on some Ben Shapiro shit.

Pinochet, Batista, Somoza? No? Anyone?

[Junior Miller 1502]

Oh wow the USA government causing havoc and fucking with another south/central American country. 

USA. We fuck up everything because our government is unchecked pure evil. 

[Brisketexan 106618]

  I don't like authoritarian anti-democratic regimes.

Is that why you run screaming in to every thread about military coups to howl about how bad the democratically elected presidents are? Seems inconsistent.

Murder of millions by leftist regimes (of which history has a rather impressive scorecard) -- A-OK.

What leftist regimes have killed millions in South America?

(When did I ever say any of it was OK?)

Right wing violence and murder (history fills some pages with this shit, too) -- not just wrong, but actually proof that being to the right of center is evil.

Why are you downplaying right-wing violence when the worst dictators in South America's history are all right-wing military dictatorships supported by the US to fight Communism? Seems either historically ignorant or purposefully misleading on some Ben Shapiro shit.

Pinochet, Batista, Somoza? No? Anyone?

——————————-

(Quoted the above, Tapa is odd)

 

“Democratically elected” means jack shit when a leader controls the apparatus of the state. Which presidents for life do. Plenty of authoritarian leaders are “democratically elected.” A willingness to leave the office, and not monkey with the constitution repeatedly to favor your continued reign, are a good baseline.

 

Leftist regimes in Latin America are no fucking angels. Cuba has killed and imprisoned a shitload of dissidents. The Mexican revolution saw significant wholesale murder of “counter revolutionaries” (they tried to get my family, we made it to Del Rio). Seriously, my own fucking family fled leftist death squads in Latin America.

 

And of course, my criticism wasn’t limited to Latin America. If you aren’t willing to acknowledge the millions killed by China, the DPRK, the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, that’s your fucking problem.

 

I won’t downplay right wing violence - I particularly wont downplay our own shameful fucking involvement in it (cough, Operation Condor). But I will maintain my position that wing ideology has little to do with being murderous shitbags. Instead, authoritarian, anti-democratic rule is the greatest common denominator.

 

Sorry your idols are so disappointing.

[bad_teammate 13479]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

“Democratically elected” means jack shit when a leader controls the apparatus of the state. Which presidents for life do. Plenty of authoritarian leaders are “democratically elected.” A willingness to leave the office, and not monkey with the constitution repeatedly to favor your continued reign, are a good baseline.

There are shades of grey between perfectly fair and open elections and military dictatorship, for sure, and we can find examples of governments reaching across that entire span.

Bolivia under Morales is far closer to the fair side than the military dictatorship side. We can dislike stacking courts and changing the Constitution, but all of that is built into democracy. We can amend (monkey with) our Constitution and pack our courts if we want, and while I agree that doing so harms democracy and moves us away from the "fair" side, it's still a damn sight better than troops ransacking a leader's home.

Quote

Leftist regimes in Latin America are no fucking angels. Cuba has killed and imprisoned a shitload of dissidents. The Mexican revolution saw significant wholesale murder of “counter revolutionaries” (they tried to get my family, we made it to Del Rio). Seriously, my own fucking family fled leftist death squads in Latin America.

I didn't say they were angels, I was pointing out the absurdity of your hyperbole (sorry for the rhyme). The worst regimes in Latin America have been right-wing military dictatorships supported by the US against leftists and Communists.

Regarding the Mexican Revolution, why did revolutionary groups form against Diaz? What did he say he was going to do then refused to do? There's an irony here.

Quote

And of course, my criticism wasn’t limited to Latin America. If you aren’t willing to acknowledge the millions killed by China, the DPRK, the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, that’s your fucking problem.

You were talking about South American specifically and didn't indicate in any way that you were shifting focus to include the entire world, but go off, king.

Regarding acknowledging those, sure, fantastic. I acknowledge the many crimes of many regimes (those you name and even more!). What's next? What's your actual point aside from publicly demonstrating your return home to neo-con Republicanism?

Quote

I won’t downplay right wing violence - I particularly wont downplay our own shameful fucking involvement in it (cough, Operation Condor). But I will maintain my position that wing ideology has little to do with being murderous shitbags. Instead, authoritarian, anti-democratic rule is the greatest common denominator.

What is more undemocratic, corrupt elections or military coups?

If you're willing to acknowledge that military coups are more undemocratic, why is your knee-jerk instinct always to attack the (corruptly) elected officials ousted by them?

Once you remove your idiotic mischaracterization of my views and if you were left with only quoting my words, what are you even fucking arguing against?

[GSU&UT 1799]

Do you really want to do a body count of leftist vs. right regimes? It's insane to me to use that as some wedge binary issue when you're talking about millions of people being lifted out of poverty (or are you going to deny this?) and especially when we basically helped fund our own death squads in central and south america every time a leftist movement took hold. Just look at someone like Elliot Abrams who helped orchestrate the El Mozote massacre and is somehow being still rewarded for that in the current administration.

Edited November 13, 2019 by GSU&UT

[ryskey 449]

6 hours ago, Fozzz said:

I don't think Evo did anything wrong by running for a fourth term given that it was legal for him to do so.  It sounds like you should write an angry letter to their judiciary.

The majority of Bolivians think Evo did something wrong by running for a 4th term.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/22/bolivia-evo-morales-president-national-referendum-fourth-term

And Bolivians wrote lots of angry letters.

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

Morales wanted to run for a 4th term, but the Constitution didn't allow it. (Dictators love Constitutional democracies.)

A referendum was held to allow more than 3 terms. (Dictators love referendums.)

Morales lost the referendum 51-49 and he appealed that within the court system. (Appealing to courts is top-level dictator shit. They can't get enough of legal proceedings where their power hangs in the balance.)

The court system, which is full of people Morales put in because he had already served 3 terms as president, took his side and said he could run again. (Dictators are all about letting courts decide that sort of thing).

So he ran again in 2019 and won.

The OAS, which is dominated by the US, called shenanigans, so Morales agreed to another election. (Dictators fucking LOVE calling for a re-do of elections they already won, it's their favorite shit.)

The opposition said no to the re-do of the election and the military *ahem* suggested *ahem* that Morales step down. (Dictators are known for not making sure the military brass is comprised of allies. They love independent agencies.)

Morales stepped down. (Again, dictators are all about doing this they love it.)

[hpslugga 4096]

16 hours ago, XYZ said:

This is funny. The constitution of Bolivia says that a president can be re-elected ONCE. This was his third re-election. Defend that.

It's been my experience that Americans who support these actions don't really care about the so-called "sanctity" of constitutions, let alone when it comes to term limits, unless it suits their own ideological purposes. I mean maybe you're some sort of special exception, but that would have to be a hell of an exception.

[bad_teammate 13479]

9 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

Do you really want to do a body count of leftist vs. right regimes?

Well actually, Adolf Hitler was the head of the National SOCIALIST party. Furthermore, we all know the nations involved in the international slave trade were Marxists as is clearly indicated by this secret code on the back of the Magna Carta.

Checkmate, good sir, and buy my male vitality supplements and race wa... uhhh government breakdown emergency prep food buckets.

[GSU&UT 1799]

There's a ton of these tweets, but I'll just leave this one. Definitely a very democratic and non-fascist admin that is being ushered in.

 

[Fozzz 152]

30 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

There's a ton of these tweets, but I'll just leave this one. Definitely a very democratic and non-fascist admin that is being ushered in.

 

Shoulder shrugging from the anti-anti-coup people itt intensifies.

[bad_teammate 13479]

Again, it's ASTONISHING how eager people are to never ever learn anything ever.

This isn't complicated stuff. It's basically the same thing every time. Racist/nationalist forces unite with corporate interests. That is how this works. It's the same plays from the same playbook.

[bad_teammate 13479]

The fascist religious zealout lady is saying she's going to "pacify" the nation.

She represents a minority party that serves the interests of those who hate the native, indigenous people who make up most of Bolivia's population. She is going to "pacify" the majority, who is now taking to the streets to protest the military coup partially instigated by the US.

There is going to be ethnic cleansing.

We will learn nothing. We will say "no one can truly understand this" and "ah well, that's how those savage people operate".

Only one of the Democratic presidential candidates says a word, and the rest will go right along with all of these coup schemes once in office.

[bad_teammate 13479]

This looks bad, I guess, but at least these fascists aren't monkeyin' around with the Constitution!!!!!!!!!

 

[ryskey 449]

I think you missed the point and veered off in a weird, melodramatic rant against a strawman.  

Evo Morales needs to shoulder a lot of the responsibility for the current situation, which is terrible and could have been avoided.  That's all that's being argued.  Morales could have prevented this.

Follow the will of the people as they voted in the 2016 referendum.  Pick the successor.  But most importantly, ensure the health of the MAS's platform and exit gracefully, leaving a lasting legacy and strong foundation for a young democracy. This last 3 years was a crossroads, much like Zimbabwe and South Africa in the mid 90's and Venezuela in the late 90's: begin the cycle of democratic backsliding and consolidation of power and take the path of Venezuela or Zimbabwe.  Or comply with the wishes of your people, and the Constitution you helped create, and Morales could take his place next to Nelson Mandela.  His pattern of behavior suggests he wanted Mugabe's or Chavez's path instead.

No one is calling Morales a dictator.  But this is how dictatorships start.  His own base started to erode because a lot of them have seen this episode before and they don't like how it ends.  

[TwiceHorn 31987]

On 11/12/2019 at 1:49 PM, Brisketexan said:

Good post.

And I'll be honest, it's something I just don't fucking get -- why is the populist play ALWAYS to go to "president for life?"  I note that it's not confined to any particular end of the ideological spectrum (see, e.g., Dotard).

The missteps of the OAS, the clumsy intervention/statements by the US and its allies, etc. -- not good.  This is and should be an issue by and for Bolivians to sort out.  But that also means that Morales bears a shitload of responsibility and blame for how this went down.  He was a game-changer of a president.  They implemented a new constitution.  When his time in office is done, be done.  Instead, he HAD to make the play.  I just don't fucking understand why they can't resist it.

I have a developing theory that where there is a massive, poverty-stricken and uneducated (literally no education) underclass, as in much of South America and Russia, for example, autocrats appeal and "moar autocrat" makes lots of sense to that underclass.

[Brisketexan 106618]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have a developing theory that where there is a massive, poverty-stricken and uneducated (literally no education) underclass, as in much of South America and Russia, for example, autocrats appeal and "moar autocrat" makes lots of sense to that underclass.

A sound hypothesis.  Which rings quite true across the board......

[TwiceHorn 31987]

Mhm.  Previously, I would have confined my theory to uneducated, not merely undereducated, but recent events  . . . .

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

 

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

3 hours ago, ryskey said:

Or comply with the wishes of your people, and the Constitution you helped create, and Morales could take his place next to Nelson Mandela. 

He won the popular vote in the 2019 election. Then, when the also-corrupt OAS cried foul, he offered new elections.

Seems like the actual solution would be to have new elections and bring in international monitoring to ensure they're clean enough to work, not a military coup and the installation of an obscure religious fascist that the people didn't vote for at all.

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have a developing theory that where there is a massive, poverty-stricken and uneducated (literally no education) underclass, as in much of South America and Russia, for example, autocrats appeal and "moar autocrat" makes lots of sense to that underclass.

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

A sound hypothesis.  Which rings quite true across the board......

Hell yes, boys, break out the skull measurement tools and blow the dust off the White Man's Burden literature. Time for some bullshit racist/classist psychology! WOO!

[XYZ 2154]

The actual solution would be for Evo to respect the constitution of his country and not try to be president forever. Find a successor.

[SimonBolivar 11031]

I'm glad I didn't sell my United Fruit Company stock.

 

"Never let a crisis go to waste "

-Rahm Emanuel

-Winston Churchill

-Machiavelli

-Someone before Machiavelli

-Someone before that dude/dudette

 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by SimonBolivar

[bad_teammate 13479]

A legal process told him he could run again, so he did.

Should he have? I don't think so, but that moral sin pales in comparison to the military coup itself and the horrors of whatever this fascist religious zealot is about to do to "pacify" the indigenous people of Bolivia.

But in a larger sense, if the elections are untampered with and people are not forced to vote for presidente and further term seeking is approved through legal channels, why should we care how many terms presidente serves? What business is it of any of ours? That's their business, not ours.

There's nothing more inherently democratic about two-term limited presidents than lifetime presidents. Democracy is just about the people having a voice. And a fairly decent case can be made that term limits restrict the choices and voice of the people (for instance, I would MUCH rather have had an Obama third term than a single term of Clinton or Trump).

I can easily envision a more fair and democratic lifetime president than the shams we get up to here with gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the electoral college.

Furthermore, "pick a successor" is an un-democratic thing to call for. How is wanting Morales to be a kingmaker democratic?

Edited November 14, 2019 by bad_teammate

[XYZ 2154]

48 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

A legal process told him he could run again, so he did.

Should he have? I don't think so, but that moral sin pales in comparison to the military coup itself and the horrors of whatever this fascist religious zealot is about to do to "pacify" the indigenous people of Bolivia.

But in a larger sense, if the elections are untampered with and people are not forced to vote for presidente and further term seeking is approved through legal channels, why should we care how many terms presidente serves? What business is it of any of ours? That's their business, not ours.

There's nothing more inherently democratic about two-term limited presidents than lifetime presidents. Democracy is just about the people having a voice. And a fairly decent case can be made that term limits restrict the choices and voice of the people (for instance, I would MUCH rather have had an Obama third term than a single term of Clinton or Trump).

I can easily envision a more fair and democratic lifetime president than the shams we get up to here with gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the electoral college.

Furthermore, "pick a successor" is an un-democratic thing to call for. How is wanting Morales to be a kingmaker democratic?

Your sophistry is laughable. Why do you put “pick a successor” in quotes, as if anybody said that? Do you even believe the shit you post? “A legal process told him he could run again, so he did”. So, is it OK for the supreme court to make a ruling that directly contradicts the black and white letter of the law written in the constitution? There is no wiggle room here. The constitution of that country says that you can be re-elected ONCE. Also in 2016 they had a national referendum on multiple re-elections and NO won. So how is it democratic to seek re-election when three years prior you asked the people of your country a very specific question, and they answered NO? So the constitution says very clearly no multiple re-elections, and the people said no multiple re-elections, but “a legal process told him he could run again, so he did”

[Js1 86939]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

A legal process told him he could run again, so he did.

Should he have? I don't think so, but that moral sin pales in comparison to the military coup itself and the horrors of whatever this fascist religious zealot is about to do to "pacify" the indigenous people of Bolivia.

But in a larger sense, if the elections are untampered with and people are not forced to vote for presidente and further term seeking is approved through legal channels, why should we care how many terms presidente serves? What business is it of any of ours? That's their business, not ours.

There's nothing more inherently democratic about two-term limited presidents than lifetime presidents. Democracy is just about the people having a voice. And a fairly decent case can be made that term limits restrict the choices and voice of the people (for instance, I would MUCH rather have had an Obama third term than a single term of Clinton or Trump).

I can easily envision a more fair and democratic lifetime president than the shams we get up to here with gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the electoral college.

Furthermore, "pick a successor" is an un-democratic thing to call for. How is wanting Morales to be a kingmaker democratic?

Our Supreme Court says corporations are people; a Muslim ban is ok; is about to okay ending DACA and legalizing workplace discrimination against LGBT. 

therefore, if some progressive European country wants to help under the guise of human rights, please do! 

[workswithseed 2201]

30 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Our Supreme Court says corporations are people; a Muslim ban is ok; is about to okay ending DACA and legalizing workplace discrimination against LGBT. 

therefore, if some progressive European country wants to help under the guise of human rights, please do! 

Last I heard, the Muslim ban is on a select few counties, and not even Christians can come over. 

[Fozzz 152]

Some of y'all should just come out and say you support the coup and the violence that is a direct result of it.  Like the anti-anti-Trumpers, the anti-anti-coupers are the lowest of the low - people on the wrong side bereft of the conviction to admit what they support.  

[GSU&UT 1799]

2 hours ago, XYZ said:

Your sophistry is laughable. Why do you put “pick a successor” in quotes, as if anybody said that? Do you even believe the shit you post? “A legal process told him he could run again, so he did”. So, is it OK for the supreme court to make a ruling that directly contradicts the black and white letter of the law written in the constitution? There is no wiggle room here. The constitution of that country says that you can be re-elected ONCE. Also in 2016 they had a national referendum on multiple re-elections and NO won. So how is it democratic to seek re-election when three years prior you asked the people of your country a very specific question, and they answered NO? So the constitution says very clearly no multiple re-elections, and the people said no multiple re-elections, but “a legal process told him he could run again, so he did”

Um, the fucking wiggle room was to literally have another election with international oversight (not just some CIA backed group) and yet the military didn't want that and "asked" Morales to step down. It's pretty freaking obvious what is going on given the anti-Indigenous bigotry being displayed by this new president.

[bad_teammate 13479]

2 hours ago, XYZ said:

Your sophistry is laughable. Why do you put “pick a successor” in quotes, as if anybody said that?

Because I misremembered as I was typing and because "find a successor" means the exact same thing in the context of what you think Morales should have done. Morales picking a successor is exactly the same as Morales finding a successor.

If your point was that the people should find/pick a successor, they had an opportunity to do that and did not do it. They voted for Morales. OAS hasn't provided any actual evidence of vote tampering or voter intimidation/bribing.

Quote

 "A legal process told him he could run again, so he did”. So, is it OK for the supreme court to make a ruling that directly contradicts the black and white letter of the law written in the constitution?

What does "OK" mean? Legally or morally? Who adjudicates and how? (FYI, it is NEVER "OK" for the military to be the adjudicator.)

It would be better if Morales had never pursued extra terms. It would be better if Bush hadn't tried to stop the recount in Florida. Lots of things would be better in every democracy all throughout the world. I oppose military coups in every single one of those nations.

If the masses oppose Morales then they should rise up against him and vote him out. If he has so thoroughly corrupted the state apparatus that fair elections are impossible, then they should rise up and force him out. The people should handle these things, not the military.

Quote

The constitution of that country says that you can be re-elected ONCE. Also in 2016 they had a national referendum on multiple re-elections and NO won. So how is it democratic to seek re-election when three years prior you asked the people of your country a very specific question, and they answered NO?

It's not anti-democratic to seek re-election. It might be anti-Constitutional or even anti-republic given the Constitution in question, but it's not anti-democratic.

All "democratic" means is letting the people decide. Term limits are a purposeful curbing of democracy. If you want to put term limits into a category, they are anti-democratic. They exist because the elites think the people are too stupid to decide (read this thread, you will see the same attitude expressed).

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4998]

I'm not sure how Bolivia works, but I'm pretty sure if SCOTUS decided to eliminate part of our constitution most folks wouldn't regard that as a normal legal process.

[bad_teammate 13479]

Bolivia has a Supreme Court. That is not what decided to let Morales run again. Bolivia has a Constitutional Tribunal which is the body that made that decision.

The Constitutional Tribunal, which is elected in a non-partisan fashion, just said that Anez the religious fascist's ascension is allowable. If they were just a tool of Morales, would they have done that?

 

 

 

[elfenix 34658]

3 hours ago, XYZ said:

Why do you put “pick a successor” in quotes, as if anybody said that?

 

18 hours ago, ryskey said:

I think you missed the point and veered off in a weird, melodramatic rant against a strawman.  

Evo Morales needs to shoulder a lot of the responsibility for the current situation, which is terrible and could have been avoided.  That's all that's being argued.  Morales could have prevented this.

Follow the will of the people as they voted in the 2016 referendum.  Pick the successor.  But most importantly, ensure the health of the MAS's platform and exit gracefully, leaving a lasting legacy and strong foundation for a young democracy. This last 3 years was a crossroads, much like Zimbabwe and South Africa in the mid 90's and Venezuela in the late 90's: begin the cycle of democratic backsliding and consolidation of power and take the path of Venezuela or Zimbabwe.  Or comply with the wishes of your people, and the Constitution you helped create, and Morales could take his place next to Nelson Mandela.  His pattern of behavior suggests he wanted Mugabe's or Chavez's path instead.

No one is calling Morales a dictator.  But this is how dictatorships start.  His own base started to erode because a lot of them have seen this episode before and they don't like how it ends.  

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

 

[wildcat09 29556]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I'm not sure how Bolivia works, but I'm pretty sure if SCOTUS decided to eliminate part of our constitution most folks wouldn't regard that as a normal legal process.

You’d be surprised how often it happens and nobody but some lawyers ever care.

[elfenix 34658]

oh wow this is awkward

 

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

My god, this reads one of the posts in this thread. Astonishing.

"Yeah yeah yeah Pinochet is not ideal, but I think we all know that Allende should've been absolutely perfect as a democratically-elected leader..."

[workswithseed 2201]

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

hey y'all the ethnic cleansing is starting

 

[Dropout 355]

 

[Fozzz 152]

21 minutes ago, Dropout said:

 

This is what democracy looks like. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

Evil authoritarian monster Maduro let Guiado walk around Venezuela trying to start a civil war and didn't have him arrested or hurt in any way.

This coup that Western media, power, and toads either cheer or run interference for?

[bad_teammate 13479]

The coup-installed religious fascist "president" of Bolivia's party got ~4% of the vote in the last elections.

Morales's party, MAS, has 2/3rds of the legislature.

She is threatening to have those legislators arrested for sedition.

Where did you all you coup apologists go!??!

[bad_teammate 13479]

- Exempting military from prosecution when they kill civilians

- Making lists of journalists to prosecute (in addition to democratically-elected legislators)

- Threatening ethnic cleansing of the majority-indigenous population of Bolivia

 

@Brisketexan @XYZ - How are things going? What do you guys think about this cool new democracy effort? Sounds good, right?

THAT DAMNED EVO MORALES, right!?!?

[GSU&UT 1799]

Yeah this is looking, like just maybe, a coup.

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

NO WAY WHAT THE HELL!?

Are you telling me that the mouthpieces for international finance power like the NYT and basically all major mass media worldwide in conjunction with the US government and intelligence agencies are using ~*~*~ concerns ~*~*~ about democracy and corruption to help install dictators who will oppress the poor and crush any semblance of economic-left power and then sell out that nation's natural resources to the highest bidder from international capital!?

Wow, just... wow.

Look, this may have happened a dozen times in South/Central America over the decades, but you can't blame me for buying their lies again.

After all, as the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame you on. Fool me twice, shame on you again. ... Fool me 80 times, still shame on you!"

[elfenix 34658]

On 11/15/2019 at 10:51 PM, Dropout said:

 

i guess the NYT isn't western media

[bad_teammate 13479]

Is there NYT op-ed writing that is calling any of this out? If so, that's awesome. Haven't seen any.

[Dropout 355]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

i guess the NYT isn't western media

Mostly ignored? I believe I get the article you're referring to to show up with a specific google search. Then I get blocked by a paywall and can’t read it. Fitting.

Let’s play a game. Google Bolivia protests. Can even click on the little news tab right. You see what pops up right? Now let’s do Hong Kong protests. Do you see a difference? Which protest situation currently has more deaths attributed to it? Which one is in our hemisphere and which is in the other? Which one does the USA prefer the rioters to riot and which does the USA prefer the rioters to stfu?

[elfenix 34658]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Is there NYT op-ed writing that is calling any of this out? If so, that's awesome. Haven't seen any.

op ed?  it's in the tweet you posted.

[Brisketexan 106618]

Let's see, let's answer some broad criticisms quickly.

1) the incoming government is not legitimate.  Its actions only serve to confirm that.  The statements of the purported president - flavored with evangelical christian fascism - only further serve to confirm that.  Violence against the opposition is wrong, and should be condemned by all legitimate governments.

2) Morales still fucked up.  His government was a new way for Latin America.  While it had flaws, it remained promising.  The biggest risk for that type of government -- and thus, the biggest opportunity for opposing forces to delegitimize it -- would be to go all "president for life," putting the lie to the concept that what was created was a functioning constitutional democracy.  Morales foolishly disregarded that risk.

3) the media coverage I've read and seen seems pretty thorough, and has not been kind to the incoming government.  Like, not at all.  I don't see much whitewashing -- they look fucking horrible in the light of coverage.

4) the volume of stories on Hong Kong protests v. Bolivian protests is around 43 million hits to 8 million hits.  You COULD take that as some sign of bias.  OR, you could take it as a sign that the Hong Kong protests have been a big deal since mid-June.  So, for almost five months.  The Bolivian protests, on the other hand, have been going on for less than a month.  Heck, if you match up the number of hits to the amount of time each story has been a thing, the ratio is pretty spot-on -- just over 5:1 to 5:1.

Summary: I'd much prefer to see Bolivia as a functioning constitutional democracy, electing its chosen leaders via legitimate elections conducted under strong, preserved constitutional norms and standards.  I'd even much more prefer not to see factional violence by a minority party against the mostly poor and indigenous supporters of a larger party.

If folks like BT are looking for guys like me to support Anez, keep looking.  If they're looking for me to declare Morales the great savior who is without sin, keep looking.  If they're looking for me to shake my head at every asshole finding a way to act perfectly predictably, and to fall into the same asshole patterns they've followed time and again in Latin America, you've got it.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Brisketexan